options_strategy

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds the return information (net premium, max profit/loss, P&L data), which is critical since there is no output schema. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then input format, then output. No redundant words; every sentence contributes value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a moderately complex tool (multi-leg options), the description covers purpose, usage, input, and output. Lacks specifics about error handling or edge cases, but annotations suffice. No output schema, but description lists return items adequately.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond specifying the input structure ('array of legs with strike, premium, quantity, and type'). This mirrors the schema without new insights.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with a clear, specific verb+resource: 'Multi-leg options strategy P&L, breakevens, max profit/loss, risk/reward.' It contrasts with sibling tools like options_price (single option) and options_implied-vol (volatility), distinguishing its multi-leg focus.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states 'Use when analyzing a multi-leg options strategy' and provides examples (spreads, straddles, etc.). While it doesn't list when not to use, the clarity implies alternatives exist for single-leg strategies.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.